Digest: Canadian Hot Rods Inc. v Sacher, 2018 SKQB 199

Date:July 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 199

Docket Number: QBG 393/18 JCS , QB17593

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-07-18


  • Gabrielson


  • Statutes � Interpretation � Small Claims Act, 2016, Section 45

Digest: The appellant defendant appealed the decision of a Provincial Court judge that dismissed its application to dismiss the respondent�s claim on jurisdictional grounds. The respondent plaintiff had filed a statement of claim in Provincial Court in September 2017, in which it alleged that he had contracted with the defendant for it to design, build and deliver a custom built automobile frame but the frame it built was unsuitable. The claim alleged that the appellant, a company incorporated in British Columbia, carried on business in that province as well as in Saskatchewan. After being served with the summons, the appellant requested and obtained an adjournment. The appellant then sent a letter to the court asking it to reconsider the issuance of a small claims summons on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction. In addition to deciding that it could not hear the application because there was no provision in the Small Claims Act for it, the court ordered the appellant to file a reply in which it raised the issue of jurisdiction, which could then be decided at trial on the basis of a full evidentiary record.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that as the claim was issued but not completed before the coming into force of The Small Claims Act, 2016 on January 1, 2018, the proceeding was continued pursuant to its provisions. Under s. 45 of the Act, a party can only appeal a judgment of the Small Claims Court to the Court of

To continue reading